Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21453508›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria.

Xia Jiang, Richard E Neapolitan, M Michael Barmada, Shyam Visweswaran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Automated Cyber and Privacy Risk Management Toolkit.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xia JiangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. xij6@pitt.edu
Richard E Neapolitan
M Michael Barmada
Shyam Visweswaran

Funding

New Bayesian algorithms for genome-wide association mappingR01HG004718 · NHGRI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI ZHANG, YU · 2008 to 2014
$964k
Detecting Genome Wide Epistasis with Efficient Bayesian Network LearningR00LM010822 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA · 2012 to 2014
$565k
Detecting Genome Wide Epistasis with Efficient Bayesian Network LearningK99LM010822 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA · 2010 to 2011
$180k
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG004718NLM NIH HHS 1K99LM010822-01NLM NIH HHS K99 LM010822NLM NIH HHS R00 LM010822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene-gene epistatic interactions likely play an important role in the genetic basis of many common diseases. Recently, machine-learning and data mining methods have been developed for learning epistatic relationships from data. A well-known combinatorial method that has been successfully applied for detecting epistasis is Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR). Jiang et al. created a combinatorial epistasis learning method called BNMBL to learn Bayesian network (BN) epistatic models. They compared BNMBL to MDR using simulated data sets. Each of these data sets was generated from a model that associates two SNPs with a disease and includes 18 unrelated SNPs. For each data set, BNMBL and MDR were used to score all 2-SNP models, and BNMBL learned significantly more correct models. In real data sets, we ordinarily do not know the number of SNPs that influence phenotype. BNMBL may not perform as well if we also scored models containing more than two SNPs. Furthermore, a number of other BN scoring criteria have been developed. They may detect epistatic interactions even better than BNMBL.Although BNs are a promising tool for learning epistatic relationships from data, we cannot confidently use them in this domain until we determine which scoring criteria work best or even well when we try learning the correct model without knowledge of the number of SNPs in that model.

resultsWe evaluated the performance of 22 BN scoring criteria using 28,000 simulated data sets and a real Alzheimer's GWAS data set. Our results were surprising in that the Bayesian scoring criterion with large values of a hyperparameter called α performed best. This score performed better than other BN scoring criteria and MDR at recall using simulated data sets, at detecting the hardest-to-detect models using simulated data sets, and at substantiating previous results using the real Alzheimer's data set.

conclusionsWe conclude that representing epistatic interactions using BN models and scoring them using a BN scoring criterion holds promise for identifying epistatic genetic variants in data. In particular, the Bayesian scoring criterion with large values of a hyperparameter α appears more promising than a number of alternatives.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticModels, GeneticBayes TheoremComputational BiologyGenotypeHumansMultifactor Dimensionality ReductionPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID21453508
PMCPMC3080825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.